“It resonates with me that Jesus came to wage war on sin”

Not with all of us, though. I have my concerns about the language of “Jesus came” there; I dispute that “sin” was the target of his mission (least of all whatever we choose to label as sin *today*) so much as institutionalized corruption (look at who he hung out with and who he slagged-off, after all!); therefore there is no need of the term “war” in the middle either.

I’m very suspicious of military metaphors being used in a religious context. This might have something to do with my growing up in the Salvation Army. It might also have something to do with the tabloid hysteria about Jihad – Holy War in the Muslim tradition. It might be all kinds of things. Of the many complex and fascinating images that are in the bible, those which use violence to advance any religious cause are pretty far down the list of those I would meditate on.

Clearly, St Paul and/or the writer to the Hebrews thought that the Christian task was to be enaged in fighting battles and in waging wars.

Equally clearly, those are not metaphors which motivate me.

This may be an opportunity to say that it was a delight, when all the debating about women bishops was going on, to read your article English Episcopate July 7th. The article, and one comment in particular from Kenny, were music to the ears. Thank goodness the Scottish Episcopal Church can be forward enough to give this kind of encouragement.

Sorry to hear that it’s gotten abusive Kelvin. There’s a lot of eedjits out there (and it takes one to know one…)

I did feel a note of irony of your third bullet point “comments which use [the bible] as a weapon are unwelcome” when I thought of this verse from the letter to the Hebrews:

ch4:v12
“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

(full chapter is here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204;%20Revelations%201:16;2:12;&version=31

I think the word of God should humble and elicit respect from Christians even when it is spoken with ignorant intentions. (I think of David refusing to strike the Lord’s anointed, or putting up with the humiliation of someone who might be cursing him and his men prophetically!)

If the words of Scripture are painful to us we must take seriously the possibility that it is the pain of conviction of sin. It may be the misuse of scripture which is painful, and we should counter it as Jesus did when being tempted in the desert: that is, with a correct representation of Scripture.

And if God is using his double-edged sword to “prune” us, we should welcome that, despite the pain, because we trust that he promises even greater fruit as a result of this pain.

It got me thinking about how God’s word is indeed a weapon, and how the rhetoric of war is so prevalent in the bible. It resonates with me that Jesus came to wage war on sin: to tie up the “strong man” and carry off his possessions.

There is a conflict between the holiness of God and the fallenness of mankind which still plays out today, either within us our in external circumstances. Jesus came that we might experience the peace of God, but understood that in order to have that ultimate peace, a war must first be waged. I believe he dealt the master-stroke on the cross, against which there is no effective comeback, but still God allows us to take part in the final stages of that conflict in order to understand the value of what he has done for us through Christ Jesus.

The discerning Christian should identify on which front the daily battle should be fought, (prayerfully following the guidance of his Captain) and not balk at the unpleasant necessity of conflict: Jesus didn’t.

We ought to take hope from the knowledge that it is God’s intention that we should be engaged in battle, actively seeking to protect ourselves with his armour and being prepared for going on the offensive with his weapons.

Do you agree with these sentiments, or would you put a different interpretation on the above?

Looking forward to all the discussion that comes out of this.

The only way to remove this falsehood perpetrated in a word, is to stop its use, when possible.

I think a lot of the comments you’ve had in the past, and your gracious response to them, have certainly done little for the evangelical/homophobic cause. It’s laudable for you to give up gaining points in this “let all the poison hatch out” way for a more mature discourse.

Rosemary

Not to be vulgar, but there are obvious anatomical reasons why said act may be more enjoyable for homo as opposed to hetero couples. But you did remind me of Stephen Fry’s comments, in Moab is My Washpot, that the “do you know what these people do?” homopobic rhetoric is in reality a cover for the real objection to same-sex romantic love.

I find list of logical fallacies amusing – talk about setting a high standard for debate

I do hove one particular bug bear. It is the word ‘sodomite’ for homosexual. I’ll tell you why dislike it. For a start, it assumes one particular sexual act is the driving motivation for homosexual men – which it is not. It assumes that all homosexual men enjoy it, which they don’t. It assumes that it is not a common practise in heterosexual relationships, which it is. It assumes it is always a detestable practise, whereas it seems to me to be a wholly neutral one – something sexually active couples may do, with love or with hatred, just as they may kiss with love or with hatred. Thus it is utterly unhelpful as a label.